Under the Hood: Rethinking the Housing Narrative in Napa County
By Tim Carl
Your Support Keeps Us Going
Local. Independent. Funded by you.
If you’re already a paid subscriber — thank you. If not, now’s the time. Help keep independent journalism alive.
The Spotlight
Welcome to Under the Hood, our exclusive Saturday series for Napa Valley Features paid subscribers. Today we explore the data behind Napa County’s housing shortfall claims — and why the numbers don’t add up.
We’re also diving into the latest data from our readers’ polls and providing insights from our economic dashboard, covering local Napa Valley, U.S. and global markets.
In addition, we feature "What We Are Reading," a section with a handpicked list of recent articles that provides a variety of viewpoints on issues important to our community and beyond.
“What We Are Reading” quotes of the day:
“Unless new housing aligns with viable, well-paying jobs, livable conditions and sustained investment in family-friendly infrastructure, building more won’t solve Napa’s core problems. It may only make them worse.” - Today’s Under the Hood.
"As the leading Luxury wine supplier in the US market, TWE is confident that its history working with an extensive network of US distributors, combined with its proven experience in effectively managing distributor changes, which it has done a number of times in the ordinary course ... – from Treasury Wine Estates in "Treasury Wine Estates loses major California distributor," Winetitles.
"California continues to be a challenging regulatory environment, and we must continuously evaluate where we place our resources to best serve our customers and supplier partners and grow our business" – from Bob Hendrickson in "A Message from Bob Hendrickson – RNDC," Wine Industry Advisor.
“The figures suggest the past two months of high anxiety around President Donald Trump’s trade war are increasingly weighing on business staffing decisions” – from Natasha Solo-Lyons and David E. Rovella in "US hiring falls to slowest pace in two years, ADP data show," Bloomberg.
"Wine is expected to be the only major alcohol category to shrink in volume over the next decade, even as the global beverage alcohol market adds US$34 billion in value, according to new forecasts from IWSR." – from Natalie Wang in "Wine to Shrink as Global Alcohol Market Grows by $34B by 2034," Vino Joy News.
“We have become very good at turning a blind eye to exploitative practices” – from Lucie Lucas in "How can the wine industry tackle systemic problems of the labour exploitation?" The Drinks Business.
"We are proud to unite two teams that share a similar culture and commitment to quality in vineyard farming" – from Atlas Vineyard Management in "Atlas Vineyard Management on Results Partners deal," Portland Business Journal.
“Since his first day back in office, the President has gone after our nation’s veterans. The President has fired thousands of veterans and VA staff, taken a sledgehammer to the PACT Act serving veterans exposed to toxic substances and canceled hundreds of contracts for programs supporting veterans’ mental health and addressing veteran homelessness.” – from Rep. Mike Thompson in "Thompson, Colleagues, Veterans Share How Congressional Republicans' Policies are Harming Veterans' Care," Mike Thompson Press Release.
“If the NSF budget were to be enacted as is, it ‘would spell the end of any pretence that the US leads the world in science and technology, handing that position to China’” – from Neal Lane in "Trump moves to slash NSF: why are the proposed budget cuts so big?" Nature.
“The damage to the U.S. brand is immediate — travelers start choosing other destinations” – from Geoff Freeman in "Live Updates on Travel Ban and 2024 Election," The New York Times.
“This is a wake-up call for the tech industry” – from Vanessa Gray in "Tech giants' indirect emissions rose 150% in three years as AI expands, UN agency says," Reuters.
“We are going to see a rise in infections and deaths” – from Matthew Kavanagh in "Trump’s Budget Would Cut Over $1 Billion From Global HIV Programs," The New York Times.
“Our pen can pick up the very subtle differences in motion caused by Parkinson’s” – from Daniel Whibley in "Magnetic 3D-printed pen could help diagnose people with Parkinson’s," The Guardian.
Rethinking the Housing Narrative in Napa County
By Tim Carl
NAPA COUNTY, Calif. — Napa County’s current housing narrative rests heavily on a single claim: that the region is nearly 10,000 units short—a number far beyond the threshold set by California’s state-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation, which requires local jurisdictions to plan for a much lower, legally binding minimum during the 2023–2031 cycle. The nearly 10,000 number, introduced in the 2024 Housing Needs Assessment and echoed throughout planning documents, is a figure that has become shorthand for urgency. But it’s not based on unmet demand today. It reflects projected need — assuming population and job growth had continued along early 2000s trends.
They didn’t.
Despite the recent uptick, Napa County is still far below its 2016 population peak of nearly 141,000. Today the county stands at 136,124 — down by roughly 5,000 — even as new housing has continued to come online, especially in southern jurisdictions like American Canyon. Job growth has stagnated, and wages in key sectors have not kept pace with rising living costs. Yet the narrative persists: that declining population, flat wages and commuter churn are all symptoms of too little housing. The implication is that had we built more, these problems might have been avoided.
But the data suggest the opposite. Housing stock has grown while economic opportunity has eroded. If there’s a causal link, it may run in reverse: A shrinking base of well-paying jobs could be driving people out — not a housing shortage keeping them away.
This column takes a data-driven look at Napa County’s housing debate through five critical lenses:
the disconnect between housing and job growth
shifting commuter patterns
demographic aging
stagnant local wages
and the gap between speculative targets and enforceable state growth mandates.
Taken together, these factors suggest that simply building more housing — without aligning it to economic opportunity, wages and broader infrastructure needs — might not address the underlying challenges facing Napa County today.
Housing Has Grown — Jobs Have Not
Between 2010 and 2023, Napa County added more than 6,000 new housing units, according to the California Department of Finance. That represents a housing growth rate of approximately 12% — significant for a rural county. Most of this development occurred in the cities of Napa and American Canyon.
At the same time, the county experienced major housing losses due to wildfires, including the 2017 Atlas and Tubbs fires and the 2020 Glass Fire. These events destroyed hundreds of homes, particularly in unincorporated areas. When fire-related losses are accounted for, the net housing gain is smaller than it first appears — but still clearly positive. In other words, even with disaster-driven setbacks, Napa’s overall housing stock continued to grow.
Job growth during the same period told a different story.
Employment data from the California Employment Development Department and the U.S. Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics program show that total jobs in Napa County have remained largely flat or declined in several key sectors, particularly agriculture and manufacturing. While hospitality and wine-industry employment did expand in the years leading up to the pandemic, that growth has not fully returned and remains sensitive to broader economic cycles and tourism shifts.
The resulting mismatch is visible in the graph comparing total employment with net housing growth. Housing increased steadily. Jobs did not. And it’s not just that job growth stalled — it’s that many higher-wage, career-oriented positions, essential to sustaining long-term community health, have declined.
As the 2024 Napa Valley Housing Needs Assessment notes, employment opportunity for many traditionally middle-income jobs has declined over time, reducing upward mobility for lower-income households.
This structural decoupling complicates the housing narrative. It challenges the assumption that building more homes will naturally align with or stimulate local economic demand. And it raises a sharper question: If stable, well-paying jobs are not expanding alongside housing, who are these new units for — and how will they contribute to a durable, resident-centered economy?
Commuting Patterns Undermine the Workforce Argument
One of the central justifications for expanding housing in Napa County is that it will reduce traffic congestion by bringing workers closer to job centers. The 2024 Napa Valley Housing Needs Assessment and the Housing Element both cite this claim, pointing to 58,000 daily vehicle trips as evidence of a strained system — and calling for more housing near employment hubs.
But longitudinal traffic data suggest otherwise.
According to the 2018 Napa Valley Transportation Study, there were approximately 72,100 intra-county weekday vehicle trips. By 2024, according to the Napa Valley Housing Needs Assessment, that number had fallen to 58,000 — a drop of nearly 20%. This trend doesn’t indicate growing strain. It signals contraction: fewer people living and working within the county. That decline aligns with job stagnation and population loss, not a housing-driven commuting crisis.
Inbound commuting tells a similar story. Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics data show that commuting into Napa County has plateaued or declined — even as new housing has come online in southern jurisdictions such as American Canyon. If a shortage of homes near jobs were driving worker displacement, we would expect commuting from American Canyon to places like Napa or the up-valley to rise with each new housing development. It hasn’t.
Instead, many new housing areas, particularly in American Canyon, function less as job-linked communities and more as spillover zones for the greater Bay Area. LEHD data indicate that most new residents there work in Solano County or the East Bay — not Napa Valley. The idea that these units are bolstering Napa’s internal workforce doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
Meanwhile, given the report’s own logic, if reducing traffic is truly the goal, then where, exactly, should new housing go? Should St. Helena or Yountville — communities that generate significant Transient Occupancy Tax revenue and contain dense clusters of Type 02 winery licenses — be expected to absorb hundreds of new units in the name of new housing? Calistoga already has an estimated 200 new units that have been recently built or coming online soon. Yet no study has defined how much housing would actually reduce congestion — or even what level of traffic is considered "too much."
As noted in one public rebuttal to the Housing Element process:
“Traffic patterns remain largely anecdotal ... no threshold for ‘too much traffic’ has been defined, nor has there been a clear analysis of how much new housing would alleviate congestion.”
In short, current commuting patterns and workforce data do not support the argument that housing shortages are the primary cause of traffic problems. The more likely explanation is a broader structural shift: Local jobs have stagnated, and housing development has become increasingly detached from economic geography.
Demographic Momentum and the Aging Base
Housing advocates often say they want to build for families. But demographic data and economic realities suggest that families aren’t leaving Napa County because there aren’t enough homes — they’re leaving because the kinds of homes they want are out of reach and the jobs needed to afford them increasingly don’t exist here.
Napa County’s population isn’t growing. It’s aging.
According to the California Department of Finance and U.S. Census Bureau estimates, the Napa County demographic trajectory remains troubling. By 2030, the number of working-age residents (18–64) is projected to fall nearly 20%, from 83,614 to 67,032. Meanwhile, the over-65 population is expected to grow by roughly 12%, to around 27,000. That demographic shift — fewer workers, more retirees — has major implications for public services, healthcare systems and school enrollment. These changes are not just statistical — they’re structural.
One clear indicator: school enrollment. The Napa County Office of Education reports sustained declines in public school attendance since 2015, prompting the closure of several elementary campuses. These weren’t shut down because families couldn’t find housing — they closed because there were fewer children.
So why are families leaving — or choosing not to come? In interviews and public comments, three consistent themes emerge: stagnant or low wages, limited career opportunities and housing that doesn’t match what families actually want or need. Many say they could manage a high mortgage if well-paying jobs were available. Others long for what used to be standard in Napa — a backyard, thriving schools and a realistic path to upward mobility. Today, even so-called “affordable” housing often translates to small, high-density units that are far from job centers and tethered to long commutes.
At the same time, aging residents are aging in place — sometimes across multiple properties — further reducing turnover in the kind of housing that families typically seek.
This is not just a local issue. It reflects broader national shifts: declining birth rates, delayed family formation and rising economic uncertainty among younger adults. Still, in Napa the effects are especially visible. Growth has stalled not because people don’t want to live here, but because they can’t afford to.
Assuming that blanket housing production — especially dense, multifamily formats — will reverse these trends misreads both the data and the desires of the very families that planners say they want to support. Unless wage growth and economic opportunity catch up, adding thousands of new units won’t bring back families. It will just add more pressure to a system already out of balance.
The Problem Isn’t Houses. It’s Wages.
Napa County’s housing crisis didn’t arrive overnight. It has been building over the past 15 years — a slow, structural unraveling driven less by a lack of housing and more by the erosion of economic opportunity. The chart below tells the story: While home prices more than doubled since 2010, local wages have failed to keep pace. The result is a housing affordability ratio that’s climbed from 4.5 to 8.6 — pushing ownership out of reach for most working families.
Back in 2010, the median home cost about 4.5 times the median household income — high, but still attainable for families working in agriculture, public service and small business. Since then, home prices have jumped more than 130%, while incomes rose just 24%. Napa’s economy no longer generates the kinds of jobs that make homeownership feasible.
What changed? The county’s economic base has tilted heavily toward tourism, hospitality and wine production — industries that now employ nearly half of the workforce but offer limited wage growth. Tourism jobs average around $35,000 a year, hospitality roles closer to $30,000 and wine production just over $40,000. Even higher-paying sectors such as healthcare and professional services fall well short of the income needed to afford a $937,500 median home.
At the same time, Napa’s economic diversification has stalled. Professional services account for just 8% of jobs. Tech and STEM fields, which drive wage growth in places such as San Jose or San Francisco, make up less than 3% of the local workforce.
Despite the focus on adding high-density housing, most families still want what they’ve always wanted — even a modest home with a yard, but they definitely prefer detached homes. With so few jobs paying enough to support even a condo, much less a detached house, building more units alone won’t fix the problem. The crisis isn’t rooted in scarcity. It’s rooted in wage suppression.
Solving it will require more than housing permits. It means attracting better-paying industries, investing in workforce retraining, offering wage supports for essential workers and designing housing policy that reflects what residents actually want — not just what’s easiest to build and permit.
The main point here is that until wages rise, “affordability” will remain out of reach — no matter how many units are added.
The State Mandate: Minimums That Carry Weight
While recent reports have recommended that Napa County plan for nearly 10,000 new housing units, the state’s legally binding requirements are far more modest. Under California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation mandate, every city and county — including all Napa County jurisdictions — must plan for a minimum number of new housing units during the current eight-year cycle (Feb. 1, 2023, through Jan. 31, 2031). These minimums, set by state and regional agencies, are enforceable: Each jurisdiction must update its Housing Element to show how it will accommodate its assigned share of housing need at all income levels with annual progress reviews. Falling short carries significant consequences, including lawsuits, loss of local control over land use, substantial fines and the possibility for developers to bypass local review through streamlined state processes such as SB 35.
Rethinking the Path Forward
This analysis isn’t a call to halt housing production. It’s a call to realign it with Napa County’s current economic and demographic conditions.
Advocates frequently cite a shortfall of nearly 10,000 units. But that figure doesn’t reflect unmet demand in 2025. It’s based on projections from the early 2000s — trajectories that never came to pass. Since then, population growth has slowed, job creation has stagnated and school enrollment has declined. The local economy has shifted, but planning assumptions have not.
And yet there’s no indication that anyone has asked the families who have already left: Why did you leave? What would have convinced you to stay? What would it take to come back? These aren’t rhetorical questions. They’re central to understanding whether new housing can attract or retain working families — or whether it’s being built for a population that’s no longer here.
Rather than defaulting to outdated models, Napa County could ask a different set of questions. Who is the economy currently serving? What kinds of jobs — and wages — exist today? What infrastructure is in place to support meaningful growth? What kind of housing is needed where and for whom?
That approach would center on people, not projections.
Unless new housing aligns with viable, well-paying jobs, livable conditions and sustained investment in family-friendly infrastructure, building more won’t solve Napa’s core problems. It may only make them worse.
—
Note: We reached out to the report’s authors with a summary of our findings and specific questions to understand whether they agreed with our interpretations or saw any areas of disagreement. As of publication, we have not received a response.
Tim Carl is a Napa Valley-based photojournalist.
Today’s Polls
Recent Poll Results
In Tim Carl’s article "Under the Hood: Calistoga Ag Day Finding Its Footing," the city’s efforts to revive the dormant fairgrounds through an inaugural agricultural fair took center stage. The event, organized on a tight budget and timeline, drew more than 500 attendees and introduced new local wine producers such as KALM Cellars. Alongside the story, poll results reveal mixed levels of community awareness, interest in future events and support for transforming the fairgrounds into a hub for community gatherings and agriculture. These insights reflect cautious optimism and a desire for more coordinated civic planning.
Question: Had you heard about the Calistoga Ag Day before it happened?
Summary: Awareness of Calistoga Ag Day was low prior to the event. Nearly half of respondents (49%) were only hearing about it for the first time. Some 22% knew about it but didn’t attend, 17% learned of it afterward and 12% attended. No respondents reported being unsure. Total responses: 41.
Question: If you attended the Calistoga Ag Day, how was your experience?
Summary: Experiences at Ag Day were sparsely shared. Among the few attendees, opinions were split between “really enjoyed it,” “mostly positive” and “mostly negative” (6% each). The vast majority (82%) did not attend. No respondents reported mixed feelings. Total responses: 34.
Question: How interested are you in attending a future Calistoga Ag Day?
Summary: Future interest in Calistoga Ag Day is cautiously optimistic. A combined 64% expressed very or somewhat interested. Another 23% remain unsure while 13% reported low or no interest. Total responses: 39.
Question: What should the primary purpose of the Calistoga Fairgrounds be?
Summary: Most respondents (68%) believe the fairgrounds should focus on community events. Public park use (18%) was the next most popular option. Only 5% favored a sprint-car race track and none chose RV park; 10% suggested other ideas. Total responses: 40.
The Economy
Economic Pulse Indicators Local:
Key Local Takeaways:
Napa County employment dropped to 3.8% in April from 4.1% in March, despite being slightly above last year’s 3.6%.
Napa County winery license issuance rose by one this past week.
Housing prices rose MoM but remain down from a year ago. Number of days of market has dropped.
Napa County’s population has rebounded slightly over the past two years, though more than 90% of that growth occurred in American Canyon — a city that may be functioning more as a regional commuter hub than as a reflection of broader countywide trends.
The Local Data:
Napa County’s unemployment rate dropped to 3.8% in April from 4.1% in March, and despite being slightly above last year’s 3.6%, the area added 2,800 non-farm jobs over the year and saw the labor force growth — indicating ongoing economic expansion. (Source)
As of June 5, Napa County had 1,933 Type 02 winery licenses, which was up one from last week. (Source)
As of June 5, California has 6,866 Type-02 winery licenses, which was flat from last week. (Source)
As of March, Napa County had a civilian labor force of 76,982 people, with historical highs and lows of 78,776 in 2009 and 54,459 in 1991, respectively. (Source)
Employment in the Leisure and Hospitality sector for Food Services and Drinking Places in Napa County remained nearly flat at 7,205 in April (seasonally adjusted), continuing a slow recovery that lingers about 5% below the June 2019 peak of 7,589 after a decade of growth from 2009 to 2019 and five years of stagnation, indicating potential structural shifts in the sector. (Source)
According to Zillow, as of June 5, the average home value in Napa County is $917,227, up 1.22% from $906,138 in April, though still down 0.7% year-over-year, with homes now going pending in around 20 days. (Source)
Since peaking in 2016 at 140,778 residents, Napa County’s population has declined by 4,654 — a 3.31% decrease. As of January 2024, the county’s population stands at 136,124, still well below its pre-pandemic high. While recent estimates show modest year-over-year gains, long-term projections remain negative. The working-age population (ages 18–64) is expected to decline nearly 20% by 2030 — from 83,614 in 2020 to 67,032 — a projected loss of 16,582 residents in that key demographic. (Source; See also, “American Canyon Grows While the Upvalley Shrinks")
The population pyramid for Napa County, based on U.S. Census data, is skewed toward older age groups, with the largest populations in the 55 to 74 age bracket and a narrower base, indicating a smaller proportion of younger individuals under 20. (Source. See also, “Demographics and Labor at Play”)
Economic Pulse Indicators United States:
Key U.S. Takeaways:
The U.S. labor market remains steady but shows signs of softening.
Inflation expectations surged to levels not seen since 1981.
Consumer sentiment plummeted.
Manufacturing shows signs of stabilizing, while broader economic uncertainty grows.
U.S. Data:
Wine production in the United States totals 806.1 million gallons, with California contributing 680.3 million gallons, making up approximately 84.4% of the nation's total wine production. (Source)
While California’s population grew by 0.29% in 2024, Napa County outpaced that with a 0.52% increase. But over the longer term, Napa’s decline has been more pronounced: Since its 2016 peak, the county’s population has fallen 3.31%, while the state’s population has remained relatively flat. This suggests that, despite recent gains, Napa’s long-term demographic trajectory diverges from broader statewide trends. (Source)
U.S. nonfarm payroll employment increased by 177,000 in April, with notable job gains in health care (+51,000), transportation and warehousing (+29,000), financial activities (+14,000) and social assistance (+8,000), while federal government employment declined by 9,000. (Source)
Initial unemployment claims rose to 247,000 for the week ending May 31, while the four-week average climbed to 235,000 and insured unemployment dipped slightly to 1.2% with 1.9 million continuing claims, marking the highest four-week average since late 2021. (Source)
In April, the Consumer Price Index rose 0.2% month-over-month and 2.3% year-over-year, with shelter and energy driving the monthly increase, while food prices declined slightly. (Source)
In April, the Producer Price Index for final demand fell 0.5%, driven by a 0.7% drop in service prices — its largest since 2009 — while goods prices were unchanged; year-over-year, the index rose 2.4%. (Source)
Gas prices dropped slightly from last week. (Source)
As of May 21, consumer loans for credit cards and other revolving plans at all commercial banks slightly declined to $1,096.07 billion from $1,100.10 billion on May 7, indicating a modest dip while usage remains near record levels. (Source)
In April, U.S. retail trade and food services sales declined to $724.13 billion from $734.87 billion in March, partially reversing the previous month’s rebound and indicating continued volatility in consumer spending. (Source)
The S&P Global Flash U.S Manufacturing PMI rose to 52.3 in May, the highest in three months, driven by rising inventories and new orders, despite falling employment and rising costs. (Source)
U.S. consumer sentiment was revised up to 52.2 in May due to easing tariff concerns, with improved expectations and lower long-run inflation forecasts but still remains near historic lows. (Source)
The Michigan gauge for current conditions slipped to 58.9 in May, while inflation expectations remain extremely high at 6.6%, far above the long-term average of 3.59% and among the highest levels since the early 1980s. (Source)
Economic Pulse Indicators Global:
Key Global Takeaways:
Global GDP remains weak, with sluggish recovery in major economies.
Shipping costs spiked due to tariff chaos.
Europe shows fragile growth, with Japan and Germany facing stagnation.
China continues to struggle with deflation, low confidence and a weak property market, signaling broader economic uncertainty.
Global Data:
Global GDP is expected to slip in 2025. (Source)
The United States maintains one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world. (Source)
Drewry’s World Container Index surged 41% to $3,527 per 40-foot container as of June 5, driven by a sharp rebound in U.S.-bound traffic following President Donald Trump's tariff pause, with trans-Pacific and Asia-Europe freight rates soaring amid a short-term supply-demand tightening, though declines are expected in the second half of 2025. (Source)
Japan's GDP contracted 0.2% quarter-over-quarter in Q1 2025, marking its first decline in a year amid weaker exports, flat consumption and trade-policy concerns, with annualized growth falling 0.7% following a 2.4% gain in Q4. (Source)
The U.K. economy grew 0.7% in Q1 2025, its strongest pace in three quarters, driven by services, industrial production and investment, with GDP up 1.3% year-on-year. (Source)
Germany's economy grew 0.2% in Q1 2025, rebounding from a prior contraction amid improved confidence and lower inflation, though it still contracted 0.2% year-over-year, marking a seventh straight quarter of recession. (Source)
China's consumer prices fell 0.1% year-on-year in April for the third straight month, driven by weak demand and trade tensions, while core inflation held steady at 0.5%. (Source).
China’s producer prices declined 2.7% year-on-year in April, marking the 31st consecutive month of deflation due to weak demand and trade tensions, with production materials and consumer goods seeing sharper price drops. (Source).
Consumer confidence in China fell to 87.5 in March from 88.4 in February, remaining well below the historical average of 109.1 and reflecting continued economic pessimism. (Source)
The chart shows that real residential property prices in China continued their sharp decline through Q4 2024, falling to 92.6 — marking a steep drop from the Q3 2021 peak of 112.9 and signaling the most prolonged downturn since records have been reported. (Source)
Explore These Related Articles:
Browse All Napa Valley Features Stories
When I was on the San Anselmo Town Council early this century, we faced the same problem of the number of mandated new housing units. We considered promoting second floors on downtown buildings, second floor housing on our local Safeway - all a bit silly - and never done.
The predatory capitalist dogma of wage slavery to support low costs and ignoring unchecked population growth is the heart of the main problem. Under this doctrine, economic growth is only achieved by population growth. Sustainability should be defined as “better not bigger”.
This is an interesting, and partially convincing, analysis, but I still have questions.
Last I knew, the vacancy rate for houses, apartments, and condos was very low. Far lower than is healthy for a good seller-buyer balance. Has that changed? A tight housing market suggests that vacant units are snapped up quickly. And, with low vacancy rates, the power is in the hands of sellers'/landlords' to keep raising prices. That seems to be exactly what is happening, with housing costs far outpacing wages.
It is not only "low-wage" workers who are priced out of Napa County housing, many higher wage professionals cannot find housing that they can afford in Napa County. What is that if not a housing shortage?